So now we have people going over because they dislike GWs codex values and see it as 'vigilante justice' and if all else fails... Boldface lie to your opponent to gain an advantage.

So many severe anti-social behaviors to justify extra points in the name of casualness.

Or you could just not go over the limit. I have dozens of lists, all built to be under the closest round number like 1500, 1750 and so on. If you have piles of datasheets all a few points over so you constantly have this issue, that sounds like a personal issue. Make all your lists 'under' and you will never have the problem.

For me, these are the things that have to be true for me to play someone who's over the points limt:
1. They're over by a miniscule amount
2. There's no easy way to get below the points limit by dropping a model or upgrade without being significantly under the limit
3. It's just a casual pick-up game with no prearrangement whatsoever
4. They literally just wrote the list and haven't even had 5 minutes to fix it.

nkelsch wrote:
So now we have people going over because they dislike GWs codex values and see it as 'vigilante justice' and if all else fails... Boldface lie to your opponent to gain an advantage.

So many severe anti-social behaviors to justify extra points in the name of casualness.

Or you could just not go over the limit. I have dozens of lists, all built to be under the closest round number like 1500, 1750 and so on. If you have piles of datasheets all a few points over so you constantly have this issue, that sounds like a personal issue. Make all your lists 'under' and you will never have the problem.

White lies are actually an important part of social interactions, i would regard a small lie over five points as being a lot less 'anti social' than being uptight about it.

Actually judging by the replies in this thread, i probably wouldn't want to play against someone who had that attitude, even if i wasn't over in points. Even my old 'tfg' opponent was fine with other people being a couple of points over, and he was bad enough.

if your idea of honesty and fair play is coming to a game where you knew in advance the points limit hundreds of points (slippery slope, 1 point or a hundred, it makes no difference) over and tell a 'white lie" saying your spot on, I am pretty sure that no one here would want to play you either.
the rules are the rules, respect is respect and honesty is honesty. there are no grey areas.

xruslanx wrote:



White lies are actually an important part of social interactions, i would regard a small lie over five points as being a lot less 'anti social' than being uptight about it.

But 'White Lies' or 'Cheating' is not part of games and a factor in 'sportsmanship. Why not avoid having to lie to make your opponent feel better and simply 'not go over'? While you are attempting to lie to keep social interaction good, know what else does that? Being a good sport, following the rules, not lying and not intentionally cheating.

Actually judging by the replies in this thread, i probably wouldn't want to play against someone who had that attitude, even if i wasn't over in points. Even my old 'tfg' opponent was fine with other people being a couple of points over, and he was bad enough.

"I'm am taking my ball and going home because you won't let me have my advantage"
"You can't decline a game with me because I am over the points limit, I quit and refuse to play you!"
"I broke the rules and won't follow the point limit but You are the problem."

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For me, these are the things that have to be true for me to play someone who's over the points limt:
2. There's no easy way to get below the points limit by dropping a model or upgrade without being significantly under the limit

That's the worst. If those few extra points are a meltabomb or something then no big deal. If they're the difference between taking an additional unit and not taking it then that is definitely a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality.

And here's a good example. You've outright said that you get to take an extra unit by being slightly over the limit. Why do you think you should be able to take that unit?

"Ah, I only have 45 points and I want to take a deffkopta with a Buzzsaw... What? I am 20+ points over now? But if I drop that model I am drastically under, don't I deserve that advantage? You are rude for not letting me take it, it is only 1 model. I should have lied about it so you didn't know. I can't just 'rewrite' my list, any change can take a long time to plan for! You are such a terrible person for even complaining about it."

Or:

"Ah, I only have 45 points and I want to take a deffkopta with a Buzzsaw... Well, let's see. This Nob doesn't really need 'Eavy armor. I can take 15 grots instead of 19 grots and still be effective and I will drop this Rokkit boy from my Trukk boys. Now I am exactly under before I even leave my house. I am glad I made a legal list and now there are no potential social issues when I go to game."

You can always drop something or re-arrange your army to be under. You guys who say it can't be done are like politicians who say "we can't cut the budget! If we do school milk for poor kids *HAS* to go first, you don't hate poor kids do you?" There is always something which can be removed and but you simply don't want to lose anything. As someone said before... it is 'greedy'.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For me, these are the things that have to be true for me to play someone who's over the points limt:
2. There's no easy way to get below the points limit by dropping a model or upgrade without being significantly under the limit

That's the worst. If those few extra points are a meltabomb or something then no big deal. If they're the difference between taking an additional unit and not taking it then that is definitely a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
After reading this thread, I am glad I don't play against most of you. 1-2 points over is not going to do much. There are many armies that I have built, for fun, that do this and don't use much in the way of upgrades, but I would have to play 8 points under and with an illegal squad as it is now under minimum size due to this "no overage ever" mentality.

And here's a good example. You've outright said that you get to take an extra unit by being slightly over the limit. Why do you think you should be able to take that unit?

Why do you feel that I should have to play at an 8 point handicap? Why should you get an extra Lascannon if I can't have that one extra body? Why should you have access to weapons that ignore my armor in every squad, when I have to cut the ones that ignore your armor just to make points? Why should you get to have a that extra squad that I can't take because of 1 point.

I guess that I am more interested (and feel the game is more fair) in a closer point difference for balancing games. 8 points under is a fair bit different than 1 point over.

Then learn to build an army that is at the point level instead of above or below it. There is no excuse. you know about the game well in advanace and have loads of time to prepare (even more time to prepare a variety of lists at different points levels.

To be honest, part of playing the game IS the list building. if you need help andtutelage, I'm sure other members of your gaming community can help you learn this skill. Learning it is far better than purposely cheating or just giving yourself a handicap.

 megatrons2nd wrote:


Why do you feel that I should have to play at an 8 point handicap? Why should you get an extra Lascannon if I can't have that one extra body? Why should you have access to weapons that ignore my armor in every squad, when I have to cut the ones that ignore your armor just to make points? Why should you get to have a that extra squad that I can't take because of 1 point.

I guess that I am more interested (and feel the game is more fair) in a closer point difference for balancing games. 8 points under is a fair bit different than 1 point over.

And this is why no one should be over... people rationalize why they are 'ok' but others are causing issues. The only 'fair' solution is to not go over and learn to re-write your list to maximize the available points. If you are 8 points under in an army with upgrades less than 8 points, you are not very good at list building. Since every codex has cheap upgrades, it is possible to make legal lists and use almost all the points. Hundreds of people do it for tourneys for all variety of codexes. It can be done.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Why do you feel that I should have to play at an 8 point handicap?

You don't have to play at a handicap. You have the same points available to spend, you just made the choice that a list that is 8 points under the limit is better for you than a list that gets exactly to the limit. It's a reasonable choice to make sometimes. For example, I might have enough points for a plasma gun but I take a melta gun instead because I need more anti-tank shooting, and end up 5 points under the limit. But I'm not going to whine about it and demand that I should be allowed to go over by 10 points so I can take another upgrade somewhere and spend those last points.

Why should you get an extra Lascannon if I can't have that one extra body?

Because my list is legal and yours isn't, therefore my "extra" lascannon is not not extra at all.

Why should you have access to weapons that ignore my armor in every squad, when I have to cut the ones that ignore your armor just to make points?

I don't know. It sounds like you're just not very good at building a list.

Why should you get to have a that extra squad that I can't take because of 1 point.

See previous answer about the lascannon. My list is legal and therefore the squad isn't "extra". Yours is illegal.

8 points under is a fair bit different than 1 point over.

You're right. 8 points under is a legal list. 1 point over is an illegal list, and tells your opponent that you are the kind of person who takes more than you're entitled to and pressures your opponent to accept it. It's just like movement distances: you're entitled to move 6", you're free to choose to move 4" because you think it's a better move, but you don't get to move 7" just because it would give you an advantage that you want.

I can see both sides to this argument, really. I prefer to keep it friendly and not incredibly stingy or strict by allowing my friends a <5 point difference that won't really sway the course of the whole game. It's a game. I don't blame losing today's Kill Team game to 1 extra point (just one failed break roll where I'd have otherwise won )

On the other hand, it's not exactly a dramatic quest to cobble together a list in just a couple minutes (like I had to today with 750 points) with a couple more to modify things as seen fit. Just start with your cheapest compulsory HQ and troops, grab that thing or two you really want to use, then fill in the remaining points switching out better HQ or troops or complimenting the rest of your list.

I think the real problem is that nobody budges in YMDC. Failing to merit the opposition's argument is what really generates all the friction, and from there people are even more adamant about their opinions. We're all respectable folks here... Except for that Slaanesh cultist over in the far left corner.

Edit: Occupy YMDC (with logic and tolerance!)

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I can see both sides to this argument, really. I prefer to keep it friendly and not incredibly stingy or strict by allowing my friends a <5 point difference that won't really sway the course of the whole game. It's a game. I don't blame losing today's Kill Team game to 1 extra point (just one failed break roll where I'd have otherwise won )

On the other hand, it's not exactly a dramatic quest to cobble together a list in just a couple minutes (like I had to today with 750 points) with a couple more to modify things as seen fit. Just start with your cheapest compulsory HQ and troops, grab that thing or two you really want to use, then fill in the remaining points switching out better HQ or troops or complimenting the rest of your list.

I think the real problem is that nobody budges in YMDC. Failing to merit the opposition's argument is what really generates all the friction, and from there people are even more adamant about their opinions. We're all respectable folks here... Except for that Slaanesh cultist over in the far left corner.

Edit: Occupy YMDC (with logic and tolerance!)

We can see very well what the opposite side is saying but this is a place to debate rules RAW, RAI and HWYPI. As 'limit' has a clear definition and is not a grey area nor is it a broken aspect of the rules we respond as such and say no, it's cheating. Not within the rules. A clear violation of RAW.

The consensus on HYWPI also seems to express the same views dispute the 'most players are ok with it' comment the GW makes. Now everyone knows where the larger community stands on this issue and a clear RAW definition is in place. If anyone, along with their local gaming crew would like to house rule limits into 'estimates' that's fine. We are not here to deny anyone their preferred way of doing things, simply to come together to better define rules for 40k. If you don't like a rule, don't use it, change it, something but please don't come in here and seek permission to do so. That is not up to us. It's up to your flgs, friends, TOs and anyone else who has a steak in your 40k games. You don't need our permission to do anything, play as you like. If your opponent and you come to a consensus it really does not matter what we say here.

We are not here to tell you how you should play. We are here to better define the rules for playing found in the books.

 Peregrine wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
Why do you feel that I should have to play at an 8 point handicap?

You don't have to play at a handicap. You have the same points available to spend, you just made the choice that a list that is 8 points under the limit is better for you than a list that gets exactly to the limit. It's a reasonable choice to make sometimes. For example, I might have enough points for a plasma gun but I take a melta gun instead because I need more anti-tank shooting, and end up 5 points under the limit. But I'm not going to whine about it and demand that I should be allowed to go over by 10 points so I can take another upgrade somewhere and spend those last points.

Why should you get an extra Lascannon if I can't have that one extra body?

Because my list is legal and yours isn't, therefore my "extra" lascannon is not not extra at all.

Why should you have access to weapons that ignore my armor in every squad, when I have to cut the ones that ignore your armor just to make points?

I don't know. It sounds like you're just not very good at building a list.

Why should you get to have a that extra squad that I can't take because of 1 point.

See previous answer about the lascannon. My list is legal and therefore the squad isn't "extra". Yours is illegal.

8 points under is a fair bit different than 1 point over.

You're right. 8 points under is a legal list. 1 point over is an illegal list, and tells your opponent that you are the kind of person who takes more than you're entitled to and pressures your opponent to accept it. It's just like movement distances: you're entitled to move 6", you're free to choose to move 4" because you think it's a better move, but you don't get to move 7" just because it would give you an advantage that you want.

To be fair, if I am playing a 500 pts game with someone and he has the choice to make a 510 point army or a 375 point one, due to the legal minimum unit size of his codex, I would not hesitate to let him go 10 points over, or maybe houserule that a 4-man Strike Squad is okay.

For example.

It is all down to context.

thats why this topic is usuallybetter off in the 40k general forum because there, opinions and possible other solutions and house rules and so forth are more the point. In posting it in here, it is a matter of what is the rules definition of the points limit and that is the limit is the limit. To go into house rules and "I dont mind' or how would you play its, I fell obfuscate the issue here which is, is it officially legal or not to go over. The rulebook specifically states a clear and resounding no. There are a million threads on opinions and how would you play its in the general section.

Except that this is a HYWPI topic, not RAW.

See OP.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Except that this is a HYWPI topic, not RAW.

See OP.

...and now you know how people play it.

For casual games played at my FLGS, if two players agree upon a point value, then we try to stay under that point value or right at it. Even if we go over by 1 point, it's good form to let your opponent know, "hey, do you mind if I'm over by 1 pt?" If possible you adjust accordingly and move on.

Truthfully though, we usually never go over by more than a single point, and tha's usually just to stick a meltabomb on a sgt somewhere.

1 point can be a big deal, however. For example, if you need to put a dozer blade on a rhino, but it would put you over by a point, it could be the difference between an immobilised rhino on turn one or not, which is a big deal. Just food for thought. Best advice, try to stay at the point value or below.

robzidious wrote:
For casual games played at my FLGS, if two players agree upon a point value, then we try to stay under that point value or right at it. Even if we go over by 1 point, it's good form to let your opponent know, "hey, do you mind if I'm over by 1 pt?" If possible you adjust accordingly and move on.

Truthfully though, we usually never go over by more than a single point, and tha's usually just to stick a meltabomb on a sgt somewhere.

1 point can be a big deal, however. For example, if you need to put a dozer blade on a rhino, but it would put you over by a point, it could be the difference between an immobilised rhino on turn one or not, which is a big deal. Just food for thought. Best advice, try to stay at the point value or below.

That meltabomb can also mean the difference between destroying an opponents vehicle or not.
So I don't really see the difference between the two examples.
Even one point upgrades can make a big difference under the right circumstances.
My advice: just don't go over the point limit.

What it boils down to for the OP if he asked us if we cheat and if we do, how extreme do we allow the cheat to be. I',m "making da call" that cheating is against the rules.

When i play wih my brother and one of us is going over regardless of what it is we always roll 2D6 to decide. what is says on the points is how far over you can go if you exceed this then tough titties, but thats just me and him and our rules are our own.

we only do it to avoid arguments and to come to a swift conclusion when points are concerned.

Zero points over is acceptable.

When two people agree upon a points limit, both should have enough respect to make their list equal to or less than the agreed upon limit.

1 point over is breaking the agreement, and disrespecting your opponent.

If you are over, it should be no big deal to drop something to make your list come in at or under the agreed upon points limit, and this should be done well before you are about to deploy.

I make lists that come to the points limit without going over. Then I tweak them and re-make them to shuffle things around without going over the limit that we have agreed upon.

If I am expected to make a list at or below the limit we have agreed upon, then I ask my opponent to adhere to the agreement as well. It is just common courtesy to do so.

 Frank&Stein wrote:

robzidious wrote:
For casual games played at my FLGS, if two players agree upon a point value, then we try to stay under that point value or right at it. Even if we go over by 1 point, it's good form to let your opponent know, "hey, do you mind if I'm over by 1 pt?" If possible you adjust accordingly and move on.

Truthfully though, we usually never go over by more than a single point, and tha's usually just to stick a meltabomb on a sgt somewhere.

1 point can be a big deal, however. For example, if you need to put a dozer blade on a rhino, but it would put you over by a point, it could be the difference between an immobilised rhino on turn one or not, which is a big deal. Just food for thought. Best advice, try to stay at the point value or below.

That meltabomb can also mean the difference between destroying an opponents vehicle or not.
So I don't really see the difference between the two examples.
Even one point upgrades can make a big difference under the right circumstances.
My advice: just don't go over the point limit.

No, you are absolutely right! That is my point entirely lol. 1 point can make a huge difference. That meltabomb could put your opponent over by 1 point which might end up being a blown land raider that otherwise he wouldn't have been able to kill.

5 points Max thats it other then that there can be some squad or equipment squishing i only play friendly games lists usually are on dot every once in a while some one is 5 under or over and thats as far as i ever saw some one go with the exception of a buddy and me switched armies he had never played guard and was about 100 points over i was about 10 under never playing chaos and it was a drinking night so no one really cried about it and i believe it ended up in a stale mate.

Staying under the points you've agreed is a matter of respect for your opponent. If you turn up for a pick up game with an 1850 list and I've only got a 1750 then readjusting may result in you being over but that is part of our agreement to play. But if you're going over on a game where you've had advance notice of the points value is bad sportsmanship and shows a lack of respect.

I know some people who then allow your opponent to go over by 5 times the points you're over. Which is a nice mechanic. You're a point over well I can add melta bombs to someone. You're 5 points and I can add a Psychic level or fist or something decent. You go 10 points or more and I might be adding a new unit.

Staying within the points is more than just following the rules and showing respect for your opponent. It is also SELF respect.

The way I see it, part of the battle is won before the first dice rolls, and thats with the ability to make a decent list. And because it is a large part of the game, the points limit should be respected. You wouldnt allow someone to have extra money if you are playing a game of Monopoly would you?

 cerbrus2 wrote:
The way I see it, part of the battle is won before the first dice rolls, and thats with the ability to make a decent list. And because it is a large part of the game, the points limit should be respected. You wouldnt allow someone to have extra money if you are playing a game of Monopoly would you?

If its a few one dollar notes who cares. I have had games where people gave all their 1 dollar notes to the loosing player. He lost next round.

I think it is going to the mentality. Many people/players here "you are cheating if you go over one whole point" and those like me who feel "the game is more balanced if the points values are closer regardless if it goes over a limit" Especially when said limit, as noted by the writers, is not a hard limit. (and yes it is noted in the rulebook that this overage is allowable with opponents consent) So it is not rude or cheating for me to ask you if you are okay with me being over. It is more rude for you to assume I will never ask. If you say no I will change my list, or simply say see you later if you give me grief about asking. Because I can see all the rules arguing coming a mile away because I interpreted a rule differently than you did, and you won't ever back down because you are always right when it comes to the rules. A bit of a facetious argument to go along with the I'm going to cheat on other rules bits I've read on here about those who go over, and don't respect the rules that way. Just as much of a gimme both ways.

As to my list building skills. I do well, when I get to play, with lists derided by the internet as sub par. Just because I don't upgrade to the ninety ninth percentile every model that can take an upgrade does not mean my list building sucks. I have lists in my Dark Eldar army(which I usually use for tournaments, not that I've been to one this past year) prepared long ahead of time. My Tau have not had much play since I took this new job, and I haven't had time to do a "real" list as I am working 13+ hours a day, 6+ days a week. This is my down time. Scan forums, reply to those that catch my interest, shower, watch a show while cuddling with my wife, play with the dog, clean up dog refuse, shower, and then sleep. Any time I get to play against someone to learn the nuances of the new Tau Codex will be pre arranged by about an hour. Less the 45+ minutes to get my stuff collected, and then drive to the nearest game shop. Yeah, I love being called a cheater and people telling me I've got time to do this or that when they don't live my life. Most of what is in my list are items that are required to field the unit. I have a total of 1 super buffed mega character in my 9 different Dark Eldar lists.

First off, it IS rude to knowingly go to a game over the limit. You knew ahead of time the limit and purposely go to the game to 'ask" (read pressure the opponent to accept whether they like it or not) there is way to describe this behavior as anything but rude. well, there is another term and that is narcissistic, which also applies to arguing that it is perfectly ok for YOU (not any person in particulate, just a figure of speech) and you alone to break the rules.
I have an idea. When you ask me if 'I mind" that you are 35 point the limit, You should have "not mind" if i counter with 'sure, I'll choose a rule to break to make it even. I think the rule i choose is the stats for lasguns. Guardsmen's lasguns now have the stats of lascannons".

I have posted many times, "How I would play it" or my groups 'house rules". i would be more than happy to discuss them at length in an appropriate forum where it would be relevant. here, we are discussing 'the actual rule" which says the limit is the maximum you can spend..

I don't think the problem lies with one page stating that the 'limit' is only an agreement between the two players, and therefore it is possible to go over this limit if both players are informed and give content. I think the problem clearly lies in the reaction that comes to the next part: What happens when the opponent says 'No.' It is clear from the results from this thread that this consent is not guaranteed to be forth coming, it isn't even a good probability if you face the majority of this site, so that is far more a pressing question then getting permission in the first place. What do you do next when you are told that you must reduce your list to under the agreed limit before you are allowed to field it?

From the responses here I do not have high hopes that, in such a situation, it won't end in an argument of 'you have to allow me/no I don't' before the two players refusing to face each other ever again....

 megatrons2nd wrote:
...Especially when said limit, as noted by the writers, is not a hard limit. (and yes it is noted in the rulebook that this overage is allowable with opponents consent)

Any change to the rules is allowable with your opponent's consent.

Issues arise, though, when you expect your opponent to consent to your proposed rules change. By all means ask, but be prepared to play the game by the actual rules, rather than just assuming your opponent is some sort of horible person for not wanting to allow your rules change.

 insaniak wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
...Especially when said limit, as noted by the writers, is not a hard limit. (and yes it is noted in the rulebook that this overage is allowable with opponents consent)

Any change to the rules is allowable with your opponent's consent.

Issues arise, though, when you expect your opponent to consent to your proposed rules change. By all means ask, but be prepared to play the game by the actual rules, rather than just assuming your opponent is some sort of horible person for not wanting to allow your rules change.

I expect to receive a response of either "sure go for it" or "no try to trim something" or "let me look and see what we can do to make it fit" or even "sure let me add something to match but I might end up more than you went over". Not "no you are a cheater" or "Kiss off you rule breaker" or "You can never go over ever" or "your disrespecting me for even asking that stupid question, learn the rules".

As to assuming my opponent is a horrible person for not allowing the change, I have never thought that about anyone, but as someone who doesn't see the issue with a point or two over, being called a cheater simply because I've asked about it, and being watched more closely because I cheated with the points so obviously will add movement, or range or botch dice rolls, because I am cheating because I asked is a bit much. And being told I'm disrespecting someone because I've asked is also a bit much.

The opposition to my stance has used all of these in their responses to a couple points over, so I felt the need to put the overzealous rules lawyer as a counter which is just as plausible, and would make for just as much of an unpleasant game.

And Finally "Actual Rules" are still a bit subjective, as since I have changed playing areas do to moving geographically, there are some rules that are played differently here than they were there. All based on what has been read in the rulebook, so anybody playing by the "Actual Rules" is likely to be playing one of the writers.

 megatrons2nd wrote:
And Finally "Actual Rules" are still a bit subjective, as since I have changed playing areas do to moving geographically, there are some rules that are played differently here than they were there. All based on what has been read in the rulebook, so anybody playing by the "Actual Rules" is likely to be playing one of the writers.

I'm sorry. no. just... no. The 'Actual Rules' in this case are almost astonishingly clear. There is nothing subjective at all about: "...if you decide to play a 2,000-point game, then neither player can spend more than 2,000 points on their army..."

megatrons2nd wrote:...Because I can see all the rules arguing coming a mile away because I interpreted a rule differently than you did, and you won't ever back down because you are always right when it comes to the rules. A bit of a facetious argument to go along with the I'm going to cheat on other rules bits I've read on here about those who go over, and don't respect the rules that way. Just as much of a gimme both ways.

Hey...YOUR side of this stupidity is saying thing such as...

xruslanx wrote:Honestly if i was, say, 5 points over in my list and i was playing someone who took it seriously, i'd probably just lie and say i was spot on

So please forgive us if we fail to think of you as less than boy-scouts at first glance. Remember, this ISN'T about friends who know one another playing over the limit (though it's still rude). If I barely know you, and you immediately break what I'm crazy-in-the-head to think are the RULES, then I'm going to immediately think less of you. You have the 2+ hours we'll be playing to show me your true colors, but just know you'll be starting with a black mark...

 megatrons2nd wrote:
As to assuming my opponent is a horrible person for not allowing the change, I have never thought that about anyone, but as someone who doesn't see the issue with a point or two over, being called a cheater simply because I've asked about it, and being watched more closely because I cheated with the points so obviously will add movement, or range or botch dice rolls, because I am cheating because I asked is a bit much. And being told I'm disrespecting someone because I've asked is also a bit much.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place. It's exactly like asking to move extra distance to be in range: you know perfectly well what the rules are, and the only reason to break the rules is to give yourself an advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. You should respect your opponent enough to just take a legal list and not put them into the awkward situation of having to say no to your request.

And you might not explicitly say that you think your opponent is a horrible person, but you talk about being over points as if it's just about "playing casually", which implies that anyone who doesn't allow you to be over the limit cares too much about winning. And that's an accusation that usually turns into "WAAC TFG" or similar offensive stereotypes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:
As to assuming my opponent is a horrible person for not allowing the change, I have never thought that about anyone, but as someone who doesn't see the issue with a point or two over, being called a cheater simply because I've asked about it, and being watched more closely because I cheated with the points so obviously will add movement, or range or botch dice rolls, because I am cheating because I asked is a bit much. And being told I'm disrespecting someone because I've asked is also a bit much.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place. It's exactly like asking to move extra distance to be in range: you know perfectly well what the rules are, and the only reason to break the rules is to give yourself an advantage that you wouldn't otherwise have. You should respect your opponent enough to just take a legal list and not put them into the awkward situation of having to say no to your request.
And you might not explicitly say that you think your opponent is a horrible person, but you talk about being over points as if it's just about "playing casually", which implies that anyone who doesn't allow you to be over the limit cares too much about winning. And that's an accusation that usually turns into "WAAC TFG" or similar offensive stereotypes.

A limit is set.
We have the option to remove items to stay in the limit.
It is our problem not our opponent's.
It is a rule no different than the rest of them, we do not ask for special allowances for other rules to be ignored as well.

I have to say I agree with Peregrine completely because people seem more than willing to fight for "what is the big deal of a couple of points??"
I say "what gives you the right to be entitled to them, contrary to the rules, if it is not "a big deal" and sets me at a disadvantage?"

If asked to accept the point overspending I would say: "Remove a model or piece of wargear from your list to meet the points limit just like I did, it is not hard to do.".

If a person is not striving to have as evenly matched a game as possible what is the true motivation for playing a game?

 megatrons2nd wrote:

I expect to receive a response of either "sure go for it" or "no try to trim something" or "let me look and see what we can do to make it fit" or even "sure let me add something to match but I might end up more than you went over". Not "no you are a cheater" or "Kiss off you rule breaker" or "You can never go over ever" or "your disrespecting me for even asking that stupid question, learn the rules".

QFT. I wish I could exalt your post more than once.

Sometimes people on the internet forget what even they would do in an actual situation and are more keen on being THE INFINITE GOD-KING OF ALL RULES FOREVER on the internet.

Fun thing about human psychology is when people go into a siege mentality. There's factual scientific evidence people are more likely to dig in and hold on to beliefs even when they are shown to be false than to actually relent and change their views.

Considering the mudslinging in this thread, and it's gone on for 11 pages now, AND moderators are involved, I am legitimately curious why this thread is even still open. By my estimation it should have been locked awhile ago. Clearly the issue is never going to be resolved on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

I have to say I agree with Peregrine completely because people seem more than willing to fight for "what is the big deal of a couple of points??"
I say "what gives you the right to be entitled to them, contrary to the rules, if it is not "a big deal" and sets me at a disadvantage?"

I already gave an example several times of points being wonky.

Let's say we've got a 750 point game.

Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

My general rule of thumb on this is that for a tournament, the army point size is static and must be adhered to.

In a 1500pts tournament, you can spend at max, 1500pts. (Can always spend less, but why would you?)

In friendly games, I'm somewhat lenient, I usually allow my opponents to go over the points cost but never by more than 5-10pts, also provided I am allowed to match up to their points when I'm done.

Example, one of my good friends who plays Tau, always has the same list and it comes out to 1505pts, my favourite list for my DA always comes out at 1500pts bang on. I'll allow him to use his list on me, but I have that additional 5pts to spend to match him. (I usually buy melta-bombs or a combi or something.) Although most of the time I don't bother unless I really feel I can get something out of it.

If someone came up to me at a pre-arranged friendly 1500pts game and said 'Oh my list is 1535pts.' I'd have them adjust it down to at least a reasonable margin, in some armies that could get you a significant number of model or a significant piece of wargear.

I tend to be cool with about 1-3 points over if it is agreed upon before hand or you let me know about it. If you go over for a meltabomb, come on let it go lol but if you are guna be short by a lot then i can let a few points slide.

SRSFACE wrote:

Let's say we've got a 750 point game.

Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

SRSFACE wrote:
Sometimes people on the internet forget what even they would do in an actual situation and are more keen on being THE INFINITE GOD-KING OF ALL RULES FOREVER on the internet.

Not really. My position in real life is the same as my position online: if you show up with a list that is even one point over the limit then I will not play against you until you fix it.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Except they are NOT the same list. One list contains two separate squads of 3 models, one contains a single squad of 6 models. In a game where you have things like morale tests for casualties that depend on losing 25% of the models in the unit these things make a difference.

Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit?

No, I wouldn't go on for 11 pages (or the real-life equivalent), I'd just refuse to play them until they changed the illegal list to make it legal. And I'd expect them to fix it without complaining, or I'd just add them to my "don't play" list and move on. If the two armies are really the same then they should have no problem with playing the legal version.

ItsPug wrote:

SRSFACE wrote:

Let's say we've got a 750 point game.

Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.

Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.

Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Is a Triptide fair?

I agree with SRSFACE here. GW makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does anything in 40k.
Really, we should all just shut up and go home, and enjoy our opinions in private.

ItsPug wrote:
And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

And this. Maybe we've just discovered why taking the single squad of 6 models costs more than the two squads of 3? You get the flexibility of being able to take two separate units, but also have the ability to keep them as a single unit when it matters. So effectively by insisting on taking the 751 point list in a 750 point game you're saying that you are entitled to break the rules to give yourself an advantage in kill point games. Sure sounds like cheating to me.

I'm not sure why this is in YMDC. If you agreed to a point limit, you only bring the point limit. It's common courtesy.

If you show up at a tournament over on points, you should get bounced out of the tournament.

I guess I'm not getting the problem here.

 kronk wrote:
I'm not sure why this is in YMDC. If you agreed to a point limit, you only bring the point limit. It's common courtesy.

If you show up at a tournament over on points, you should get bounced out of the tournament.

I guess I'm not getting the problem here.

The problem is the location of the thread. The OP put a thread that has a clear cut rule in YMDC asking for our opinions on whether it is ok or not to purposely and knowingly break it and many of the posters are treating it as though it is posted in the general forum.

As many gaming groups have their own house rules to cover the issue when it arises within their group, they see it as and ok practice to do anywhere and anytime.

Their house rules work within their group because all members of their group had input in the creation of these house rules and bought into them from the start. To be honest, some of them are actually pretty good. However, they forget that peopleoutside their group did not crate or buy into their house rules. they may have a different set of house rules or beliefs.

The other aspect of this is that we seem to be having two different conversations. For example, I myself am perfectly will to let someone go slightly over in a non competitive game within my own gaming group so long as i'm able to use a set of house rules like me toss in something extra or next game I go over that amount or whatnot. I am also perfectly willing to let a rookie I am teaching go over slightly and use it as a teaching experience to press home that issue with them.
Now, in a tournament setting, My limit is zero over. Likewise against a stranger or someone outside my group because then it becomes a matter of respect and lack of knowledge of the other person. There is no excuse for it.
The posters who are having the different conversation treat every game as though it was a game within their personal gaming group and are trying to force their house rules on everyone else and use social or what SOME would call bullying tactics (note I am NOT saying that they are bullies) to pressure their opponents to accept whatever overages they want to bring. ....*This said in front of a store full of onlookers* " I'm only over a point of two. You dont MIND do you!?!?!? OTHERWISE, i'll hafta go over there and sit for a few hours and redo my ENTIRE list to satisfy some WAAC whim. you have to get an advntage over me" *the actual overage being 35 points and the game was set up a week in advance with the points limit specifically set.

Your not the first to ask why it was posted in YMDC, I brought it up many pages ago and it was edited out for me.They were right to do so because it is their call, not ours. I'm pretty sure thi conversation will go on for a good while till it gets closed for tempers flaring. lol
Considering the location though, regardless of who gets in the last word or when it gets cut off, those who advocate following the rules have already 'won" and those who advocate breaking them are just tossing out useless justifications.

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

SRSFACE wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

Not really, the two lists are set up for different tactics and usages of the models. In game, the two armies play differently and each can have advantages or disadvantages.
It also does not negate the fact that one is legal and one is not.
Can you cite where the actual rules say that it is legal to bring an army that is above the agreed upon maximum points limit? at any number because whether it is one or a thousand points, over the limit is over the limit.

SRSFACE wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

See, this is not true... Three 10-man ork units don't have the same power as one 30-man ork unit. They play different and have different advantages and disadvantages because the rules interact differently. This is VERY true for Deffkoptas where it is sometimes better to take three 1 copter unit vs one 3 copter unit.

Saying they are the same models so they should be the same points is not always true and frankly, not a decision you get to make. GW made the call, you don;t have the right to go vigilante justice and either repoint your models, lie about going over, or just go over simply because you have an axe to grind.

I feel that Flash Gitz cost too much compared to Nobz, can I simply repoint them? MANZ are super cheap compared to their NOB counterparts because a NOB with a Pk and heavy armor is 50 points but a MANZ with a pk, TL shoota and 2+ is 40 points. When you begin breaking down why stuff costs what it does then believing you have the right to change the point values or 'go over the limit' in the name of correcting the point value, you have crossed the line.

If you want to make house rules, fine. Then you say 'I have adjusted these points in this codex to make the game play better, do you mind?' opposed to 'Oh I am going to ignore the limit because the point values are unfair.'

 Selym wrote:

Is a Triptide fair?

I agree with SRSFACE here. GW makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does anything in 40k.
Really, we should all just shut up and go home, and enjoy our opinions in private.

Hahaha yes, this, exactly. How is it fair a Dark Angels player has to pay 140 points for a simple landspeeder that has a 3 shot or large blast plasma gun on it, and Eldar can bring a DEDICATED TRANSPORT that hits harder, has more armor, and is more durable? The points system in 40k is not even remotely balanced and pretending like this is an uber competitive tournament-deserving game is hilarious.

When 90% of all tournament lists are running 3 very, very specific lists, how is that "fair"? There's 15 armies. There should be more than 3 of them played in tournament settings if this game was even remotely balanced and fair.

Wizards of the Coast rapidly responds to power levels of their cards when they release new blocks by gathering statistics of their players. If they see any non-land card played in 70% of tournament decks, they ban it from tournament play and acknowledge to their player base they made a mistake. Valve tweaks Dota 2 in a similar manner, using player statistics and tournament level strategies to determine what is in fact overpowered, and respond with game balance patches to 1) keep the meta evolving and 2) keep a semblance of balance in the game to keep it fun for all players at all levels.

GW does none of these things and it takes them years and in some cases decades to address balancing issues. I am not going to be so upset I whine and whinge about it for 12 freakin' internet pages that people do/do not agree with me. IN A THREAD THAT IS AND ALWAYS WAS POSED SIMPLY AS HOW WOULD YOU PLAY IT, the only people who are wrong are the ones calling other people cheaters for not strictly adhering to a game system they view as flawed. THAT is the only rude thing going on here. Would you really throw a tantrum if a guy was a point over and explained where that floating extra point came from?

The funniest part is that I have yet to meet a player who isn't reasonable about this stuff in person. Ever. I've met a lot of players from 3 different states now in my travels. If there is someone a couple points over, you know what the other player says even when they don't really care about it, like me? To a man, they always say "Let me see your list and we'll try to figure out a way to bring it closer to points." Go fetching figure. People in the real world are genuinely respectful to each other.

Try to do that to each other online, please. That's all I'm asking. That's the only reason I'm angry. I couldn't care less if you don't agree with me. That doesn't mean you should call me or people who think like me cheaters. That is namecalling, and rude. Even if you really think that person is cheating, there are respectful ways to bring that up. That's why I called that guy I ignored earlier TFG: the very definition of TFG behavior is being rude and namecalling someone you don't agree with rather than coming to an understanding of one another.

And now I am officially done with this thread because it's been nothing but abhorrently rude behavior that serves no purpose for like 8 pages now. We've learned there are two camps who don't see eye to eye. It's not worth getting in a huff about because people are treating each other like 12 year olds.

SRSFACE wrote:

 megatrons2nd wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

I have to say I agree with Peregrine completely because people seem more than willing to fight for "what is the big deal of a couple of points??"
I say "what gives you the right to be entitled to them, contrary to the rules, if it is not "a big deal" and sets me at a disadvantage?"

I already gave an example several times of points being wonky.
Let's say we've got a 750 point game.
Both players are Dark Angels. Both players brought completely identical number of models to the field. Player A's list comes out to 751 points because he brought an entire maxed out Ravenwing Biker Squad. Player B's list comes out to 750 points because he brought two individual 3 man Ravenwing biker squads and a separate Ravenwing Support squad consisting of a lone individual land speeder.
Both players are fielding the exact same army, model for model. One player is over, the other is not. One of these lists is "legal" and the other is not.
Doesn't this seem strange to you? Would you really go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages calling the other person a cheat for having the gall to ask you if you cared he was 1 point over and showed a legal army list that was exactly the same and was not over the limit? Really?

They are NOT "fielding the exact same army" they are grouped differently which has advantages and disadvantages = not strange at all that the points may differ.
One has decided to have a big nasty blob of models, the other has decided to have 3 individual squads.
You cannot tell me that this does not have a direct impact on how they play.
Part of points limits is that sometimes hard decisions have to be made.

I personally would not "go on and on for 11 freakin' internet pages" since this is a bunch of people throwing in their 2 cents so it can get to be a ton of text.
I am sure many cases can be made either way but I find your example all the more reason to be firm on points limits: it actually DOES matter.

Calling someone a "cheat" is only when they go over in points and intend to not tell anyone which is not the main issue.
Going over in points and choosing to not sharpen their pencil is lazy.
Going over in points and expecting your opponent to accept it is rude and assumes much as evident in this forum since there are some 11 pages of differing opinion.

As pointed out, house rules governing overspending is the only way to go or not at all rather than springing it on your opponent as you are about to play.

and dont assume to pressure your house rules onto total strangers or players outside of your private group.

SRSFACE wrote:

ItsPug wrote:


And if the game is kill points and both players kill 4 bikes and the speeder, assuming player A chooses not to combat squad his 6 bikes he wins 2-1. Had he stayed under the points limit it would have been a draw. Is that fair?

Absolutely, because both people are bringing the same amount of models. The relative power difference is nil.

In fact if there are points left over, the guy who took both squads separately is at an advantage because he now has two more bikes to add special weapons to.

Same amount of models does not mean they're equal. If you have two small units you have the ability to split fire amongst more enemy units, but you also suffer more from casualties in so far as you take morale checks quicker, and lose special weapon models sooner.

Sure, could player B not take more special weapons anyway, whether there's points left over or not, I mean, player A has already gone over right? So surely you'll let player B take the extra plasma gun? You're not gonna act like a WAAC TFG to deny player B what you're allowing player A?

Basically from what I see is that it is a slippery slope on when to draw the line so please just stick with the first one.

I must have a poor imagination, I see no advantage to allowing overspending since it opens the door to too many other factors to manage. If allowed 3% more spending then that is my NEW limit but we could push it further later...

Guess what? I can show up with a legal army list and 100% of opponents will be accepting of it.

The same cannot be said about:
*Re-pointing units
*House rules
*Illegally going over
*Lying about point totals.

Sometimes being prepared and just doing the right thing can save time and problems opposed to expecting people to make accommodations or asking to impose or burden someone.

SRSFACE wrote:
People in the real world are genuinely respectful to each other.

Indeed. However, from my experience, that generally involves people showing up to games with lists already made up, and within the limit.

The only times I have ever had an opponent ask to go over points, it was because they were creating a list on the fly and it was quicker to just go with it than to go back and tweak it.

yes, part of the definition of being respectful to on another is showing up prepared and always having a legal list.

The old house rule my friend and I had back in the day is 3-4 points over. I played Tyranids so if I was going a few points over then I had to make sure it wasnt some little 2 point biomorph.

House rules are great. So long as they are kept "in-house". This is because all involved had a part in designing them, have bought into them and expect them at the outset. Not saying you in particuler, just saying you in general, can expect and try to pressure the rest of the world to abide by your house rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place.

Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly says that most players are fine with lists being few points over. So it is not at all unreasonable, nor rude, for a player to ask whether their opponent might be one of those "most players". Getting upset if the opponent is not fine with it is obviously rude, as is cheating by using an over-the-limit list without the opponent's permission.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The point is that you shouldn't be asking for it in the first place.

Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly says that most players are fine with lists being few points over. So it is not at all unreasonable, nor rude, for a player to ask whether their opponent might be one of those "most players". Getting upset if the opponent is not fine with it is obviously rude, as is cheating by using an over-the-limit list without the opponent's permission.

Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly states that the point limit is the MAXIMUM you may spend. So it is not unreasonable or rude for a player to ask that thir opponent abide by the rules. Getting upset if your opponent expects you to bring a legal list that is within the points limit you BOTH agreed to beforehand, is obviously rude.
An editorial an editor put into the book as an aside that has nothing to do with the actual rule in order to fill page space is nothing to hang your hat on when trying to justify spending over the limits willy nilly because you can get away with it. A side comment that is also not only untrue but also unverifyable. Had he personally gone to every single 40k player on the entire earth and poll them? No, that was just someone filling page space to help people develop their own house rules if the issue comes up. The fact remains, house rules are house rules and only apply "in-house". when you go outand play strangers, play in tourneys or set up games with those not in your private "house group" the house rules simply do not apply and you go by the actual rules.

 Crimson wrote:
Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly says that most players are fine with lists being few points over.

Indeed it does. Where the writer got that idea from is anyone's guess, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly says that most players are fine with lists being few points over.

Indeed it does. Where the writer got that idea from is anyone's guess, though.

I am SURE the editor did not personally poll every single 40k player across the entire earth and keep verifiable recordswhich he would have had to do for it to be accurate. I think he just put that in to fill page space. (is that comment even in the mini version that came with the game? if not, that would verify that it was just a page filler).
I also think it was put in there to encourage people to develop house rules,as we have seen a fair few of here. Some of them very good ones, that I may steal to introduce to my own group. in order to keep peace among close knit friends, but outside of those groups, peoplestill need to e polite and respectful and follow the actual rules in the book.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Look, whether you like it or not, the rulebook clearly states that the point limit is the MAXIMUM you may spend.

That much is obvious. (And I have no problem with that rule.)

So it is not unreasonable or rude for a player to ask that thir opponent abide by the rules.

Agreed.

Getting upset if your opponent expects you to bring a legal list that is within the points limit you BOTH agreed to beforehand, is obviously rude.

Again, agreed, I said that.

An editorial an editor put into the book as an aside that has nothing to do with the actual rule in order to fill page space is nothing to hang your hat on when trying to justify spending over the limits willy nilly because you can get away with it. A side comment that is also not only untrue but also unverifyable. Had he personally gone to every single 40k player on the entire earth and poll them? No, that was just someone filling page space to help people develop their own house rules if the issue comes up. The fact remains, house rules are house rules and only apply "in-house". when you go outand play strangers, play in tourneys or set up games with those not in your private "house group" the house rules simply do not apply and you go by the actual rules.

Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. And I was not using it to justify overspending, I was using it to argue that it is not rude to player to ask whether or not their opponent minds few extra points.

 Crimson wrote:
Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. .

Well, it kind of does...

Because if you show up with an over-point list on the understanding that most players won't have a problem with it, and this in fact turns out to not be true, you're potentially bound for disappointment land.

Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. And I was not using it to justify overspending, I was using it to argue that it is not rude to player to ask whether or not their opponent minds few extra points.

This is the part I fundamentally disagree with. Considering my post several pages back, and following that logic, we can infer that we are not discussing a game with friends, nor are we talking about tournament play.

This leaves 2 options:
1) Quickly thrown together game
2) Preplanned game at the store with someone you only kind of know

In a quickly thrown together game, there might be reasons to justify asking to go over the limit. You may not have access to your entire collection and due to points costs would have to go slightly over as opposed to significantly below. That would be a reasonable reason for asking to go over.

However in scenario 2, it is rude to ask to go over. Many people will agree to things for reasons that you may not be aware of. For example, if you were a younger player and I was an older player, I might hesitate to say no to your overage because I would not want to be seen as someone older picking on someone younger. If you were the older player asking a younger player if it was ok to go over they might acquiesce simply based off the perceived level of authority due to age. Players might simply agree to the overage because they don't want to develop a reputation of being difficult. If you are more known at that store and I am not, I would hesitate to say no as I would not want to develop that reputation.

All of these reasons may be true or they may not. Nonetheless I (or another player) would then be uncomfortable in a game because you wanted to be over by 1-2 points. Considering that you had time in advance to build a list that conformed to our limit, AND considering the number of people in this thread alone that have told you they would consider it rude, there is literally NO reason for you to do such a thing. You have time to make a proper list. Consider the fact that you are posting in this thread, that means you can post a thread in the sub forum for list building and have people give you a hand on building lists within points limits and you don't even have to spend much time doing it yourself.

There is no reason ever to go to a prearranged game with someone you are not familiar with and ask for an overage. It is rude, and this is the fundamental part of the argument against going over the limit.

 insaniak wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. .

Well, it kind of does...

Because if you show up with an over-point list on the understanding that most players won't have a problem with it, and this in fact turns out to not be true, you're potentially bound for disappointment land.

Well yes, but it didn't matter for the point I was trying to make, which was this: if the rulebook tells the player that there are many people who do not mind lists being few points over, then it is not unreasonable behaviour for that player to ask their opponent whether they mind or not.

 insaniak wrote:
[The only times I have ever had an opponent ask to go over points, it was because they were creating a list on the fly and it was quicker to just go with it than to go back and tweak it.

This is why my friends go with the 1500+1% rule when playing impromptu games; it's faster. If we have a game planned in advance, though, we stick to the limit.

Also we've started archiving our lists so I can usually just pull a good one out of my email at this point.

If you accept overcosted lists there are some that will always put an over costed army on the table.

It's situational, for me at least. If the game is known in advance, I will make sure I don't go over (as I have time to fine tune my list), and I will expect my opponent not to be over. However, most of my games are pick-up games. I not only know what army I'll be playing, but I also don't know the point limit that any given player can (or wants to) play. In those cases, if my opponent is a few points over, I don't care. If I am, I'll ask my opponent if he minds.

The entire reason for formal published rules is so that perfect strangers of any type can play a pickup game of 40k. Much the same concept as board games.

Doing anything contrary to the raw rules of the game put all that in jeopardy since as shown in this forum, we all have different opinions of what is reasonable for change.

I like meeting new people, trying to stick to the rules in all things (unless during the game you both dislike some game slowing rule and work it out) you tend to have that person want to play you again.

 Crimson wrote:

Whether it is true or not doesn't matter. And I was not using it to justify overspending, I was using it to argue that it is not rude to player to ask whether or not their opponent minds few extra points.

@Talizvar: the "formal published rules" on this point are a disaster. RAW, pg 108, starts off saying that "it is this points limit that determines the maximum points you can spend" then goes on to say "most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total"; I'd say we have a cluster f* (my money says that Jervis struck again).

What is "a few"? The best guide I've found is:


*from xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1070/

So, yes, it should be reasonable for a player to ask whether a few points over is okay prior to getting started. Just as it's entirely reasonable for a player to say that no, it's not. Getting to the original question about 35 points over on a 1500 list, I'd say 35 points doesn't qualify as "a few" under any known definition and therefore, no, that's not fine. As a side exercise, 1 doesn't seem to qualify as "a few" so it appears that being 1 point over is RAW expressly prohibited whereas 2 points can be done with opponent permission.

clively wrote:
@Talizvar: the "formal published rules" on this point are a disaster. RAW, pg 108, starts off saying that "it is this points limit that determines the maximum points you can spend" then goes on to say "most players are happy to let their opponent go a few points over the agreed total"; I'd say we have a cluster f* (my money says that Jervis struck again).

We don't need to analyse what 'few' means to establish the actual rules. Those are contained in that first statement. The second is simply a commentary that 'most' players won't mind if you want to break the rules.

I keep forgetting competitive play is not possible in 40k.
So even trying to stay within the rules is pointless and only irritates others.

I just feel it is a bad habit to get in with X-wing, Battletech, Starfleet Commander any collectable card game... what do I care of a couple points or a couple extra cards in the deck?

I have to lay the beatdown on suppliers thinking that specification limits are "suggestions" and that measurements at exactly the upper limit of specification is "OK" when it is not possible to maintain a process at exactly the upper limit without going over (process variation).

Limits are made so that a meeting does not have to be held for every time someone thinks rules do not apply to them but does for everyone else.

It is a means of managing expectation and performance which is fundamental to playing a game.

I had no idea how much I cared about something this silly and never considered myself TFG material but remove something from your list to conform to the limit you primitive screw heads!!!!

 megatrons2nd wrote:

Why do you feel that I should have to play at an 8 point handicap? Why should you get an extra Lascannon if I can't have that one extra body? Why should you have access to weapons that ignore my armor in every squad, when I have to cut the ones that ignore your armor just to make points? Why should you get to have a that extra squad that I can't take because of 1 point.

I guess that I am more interested (and feel the game is more fair) in a closer point difference for balancing games. 8 points under is a fair bit different than 1 point over.

Because it's about building to a limit. Are you saying that it's impossible for you to get to the points limit? How close you get to the limit while getting you want is down to you.

Well, we can all agree that 35 points over is rather ludicrous and ought to be whittled down significantly, but opinions about "Not a single point over" and the varied "If it's only x points over, it's ok to at least check with your opponent" are really just boiling down to insults now.
We agree on the original YMDC, but now we are acting utterly uncivilized in defense of our arguments. We're done here, so if a mod reads this, please lock this thread for everyone's sake.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
Well, we can all agree that 35 points over is rather ludicrous and ought to be whittled down significantly, but opinions about "Not a single point over" and the varied "If it's only x points over, it's ok to at least check with your opponent" are really just boiling down to insults now.
We agree on the original YMDC, but now we are acting utterly uncivilized in defense of our arguments. We're done here, so if a mod reads this, please lock this thread for everyone's sake.

The discussion did get somewhat heated at times, but I don't think it got truly uncivilized or insulting at any time.
And although the two sides are not going to convince one another, if we start locking threads because people disagree with each other we might as well lock the internet.
Give it time and the thread will die a quiet death on its own.

at the gaming group i run. we have a 2pt over limit. if 3 or more you remove a model or amend your list

Yes, eventually the thread will indeed die on it's own.

Besides, only the admins and mods have the choice or power to close a thread. If they decide to do so, it will be because they see fit to do it, not because a random person decrees it to be done.Yes, there have been insults thrown about and members have been reported, but a few of us have remained calm and civil .Dont judge the rest of us by those few who display poor behavior.

The main reason the thread will die though is because it is not a question with a debatable answer. The book gives the answer to us in black and white spelled out so specifically that it does not even need a FAQ. Anything else is breaking the rules.